I have been a fan of the original 1980 HUMANOIDS FROM THE
DEEP since I finally got to see it back the late 1980s. For years I had wanted
to watch it because it was one of a handful of movies that got talked about a
lot when I was in middle school. Cable television and HBO had just crept into
our backward part of rural Alabama and the kids lucky enough to live where the
wires reached would occasionally get to see something they really shouldn’t
have gotten to see. Many a kid my age told tales of catching late night
showings of R rated movies with all the dirty parts left in! These were
thrilling stories that often expanded ridiculously in the telling but one film
that stood out in repeated tales was HUMANOIDS FROM THE DEEP. The way it was
described it had to be one of the most intense things imaginable. Heads got
pulled off, arms ripped from bodies, dogs torn apart and most incredible of all
– multiple young ladies were seen completely nude! All of this graphic, bloody
violence coupled with full female nudity made the film legendary around seventh
grade and a kind of Holy Grail for those of us unlucky enough to not get to catch
it. Damn, but I wanted to see this movie!
You might expect that once I finally saw the film it was a letdown. Surely nothing could live up to the madness concocted by puberty struck male minds in full hormonal flower. But, believe it or not, the film turned out to be something I quite enjoyed. It’s not a great film and I would never claim classic status for it but it is a well-crafted piece of exploitation monster sleaze and I still enjoy watching it today. Notorious for its violence and nudity it’s just as infamous for its human raping monsters humping away to reproduce offspring like mad spawning fish. THAT was a surprise! I have to figure the kids in my homeroom class describing the film simply had no words to use to get these disturbing scenes across to the rest of us. We couldn’t understand sex much less ‘fish monster on naked girl’ sexual violence!
You can easily see why producer Roger Corman would think it would be a snap to remake this trashy gem in the 1990s. He had struck a deal to produce a few monster movies for the Showtime cable channel and this got tossed out there but, as you might expect, the budget is low and the results are bad. Sadly, the things that make the original film fun to return to for repeat viewings are one of the many things missing from version 1996.
The 1980 film had the feeling of being about a real place
with real people that had lives that went on before and after we watched them.
There was a sense of a small-town community in which everyone knew each other
that made the eventual monster trouble have a sharper edge as old grudges and
slights are brought to the surface in the tense moments. In the remake there is
nothing believable about any of the characters and I couldn’t even tell you
what most of them do for a living. In the 1980 film the characters were defined
by their jobs and their attitudes grew out of what they considered important.
In the remake characters exist only to create situations that drive the story
forward. The original was filmed on a lot of real locations giving everything a
lived in, comfortable feel but the remake is shot mostly on some of the
cheapest, flimsiest sets I have ever seen. One look at a shack/home and I knew
it was going to burn simply because you don’t build well if it’s not going to
last past reel three.
I could go on and on but the film bored me and I fear boring
you by writing about it. I suggest avoiding the 1996 version of HUMANOIDS FROM
THE DEEP and seeking out the nasty 1980 film. It’s a mean-spirited bit of
Corman produced monster mash and it can still entertain the sleaze hungry
teenager in each of us. The 1996 film will just give you a headache.
1 comment:
I didn't even know there WAS a 1996 remake. And, of course, now I have to seek it out. BUT, I will know going in that it's not going to replace the wonderful exploitation trash of the first one.
I know the original is controversial because of the monster-rape stuff, which was icky at the time but far less deplorable then than it is now -- because naked women were part of the exploitation genre, and (sadly) rape was one of the ways clothes often got shed. But they're monsters and should do deplorable things because they're monsters, right?
I recently saw a Corman interview in his SHOUT series about the making of his work on his controversial inserts of the rape scenes by someone other than the main director. To paraphrase, his conversation with the original director before filming started went like this. When assigning the film, Corman says to the director, "The important thing to remember in this film is: The monsters kill the men and rape the women. Do you understand?"
And the director replies: "The monsters kill the men and rape the women," and then goes off and shoots the film.
And when it comes back, Corman is thrilled with all the wonderful gory in-your-face deaths of the male characters. And then, when he gets to the rape scenes, they're all shot in arty shadows and other ways that obscure what's really going on.
So, Corman has those scenes re-shot by someone to fall in line with his maxim and the rest of the movie.
That anecdote makes me both smile and squirm a bit because, sigh, I get what the original director wanted -- but I also get what Roger knew, this was/is an EXPLOITATION film.
I assure my readers that in my genre/exploitation book/serial MONSTER SHARK ON A NUDE BEACH that both men and women will get naked and get eaten by sharks.
It's an exploitation book, after all. :D
Post a Comment